Re:(correction) Is DHYANA is just a mechanical act of using a Mantra ?

[Guest guest]

H.N. Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

advaitin, "Lady Joyce" <shaantih wrote:

> Well, Dennis-ji, you are the expert. Still, without the

> experience, book knowledge is empty parroting,

> and without the experience, there is no knowledge

> to distill from it. One can speak volumes of words

> which mean absolutely nothing without the true knowing

> which comes only through Grace.

 

Respected Smt Joyce,

It is very important in metaphysical discussions to know clearly

the context in which a particular word is used. The word "Experience"

has one meaning when used in the context of non-Self(anAtma) and the

same word has a different meaning when used in the context

of SELF (Atma). It is not clear in your posting whether the

word "Experience" is used in connection with non-Self or in

connection with SELF. If the word has been used in connection with

non-Self what you have written is completely correct. But if that

word has been used in connection with SELF, what you have written

does not hold any water or in other words it is incorrect.

The reason is for this:

We are always the Self and we are never away and are

never different from the SELF. What is the nature of

the SELF?

It is self-existing, self-evident, self-luminous

principle. Upanishad says " this Atman is Brahman,

and it is all experience : ayamAtmA brahma, sarvAnuBUH

iti anuSAsanam".

When this is the existing fact, where is the need for the

experience? On the other hand, we need the knowledge of that

because we are not aware of that fact about our own nature.

Upanishads remind us of this fact hence the need for

Vedantashastra.Please ponder over this.

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "narayana145" <narayana145

wrote:

 

> Respected Smt Joyce,

> It is very important in metaphysical discussions to know

clearly

> the context in which a particular word is used. >

 

Dear Sir,

 

You have written:

 

We are always the Self and we are never away and are

> never different from the SELF. What is the nature of

> the SELF?

> It is self-existing, self-evident, self-luminous

> principle. Upanishad says " this Atman is Brahman,

> and it is all experience : ayamAtmA brahma, sarvAnuBUH

> iti anuSAsanam".

 

Now let me present the view from the sadhaka's point of view. We

give example of gold and ornament. There is one inherent limitation

in the example. When we say there is nothing called ornament it is

very much true. Ornament bereft the notion of name and form=gold

alone.

 

But when we say 'jiva' is brahman' we cannot use this analogy

because when gold is converted into an ornament there is no change

in the gold as such(unless it is mixed with an alloy to make it

harder). But the moment we see ourself there is a kind of

contamination in the form or ignorance or avidya even though from

the absolute stand point we call 'as it were' or it never happened,

for a student of advaita it is a fact.

 

Now from the sadhaka's point of view who is still 'raw' in his

knowledge this ignorance or duality is a bare fact of life. In a

figurative way this may be called a 'queer experience'.

 

But the same sadhaka after the furctification of knowlede 'knows'

that there was 'no time' when he was 'other than' brahman. This we

can 'figuratively' call 'experience of brahman' or 'complete

cessation of avidya' or dawn of knowldge or intuitive understanding

etc. in whatever fashion we like isnt it? and it is a

novel 'experience' where 'the queer experience vanishes once for all'

 

Shakaracharya while commenting on Karika of Gaudapadacharya says

this..

 

When the effect of instruction is accomplished, 'Jnate', on

the 'realisation of the supreme' relaity; dvaitam na vidyate,

duality ceases to exist.

 

He also says that- How can such fancies as instrution, instructor,

and the instructed disappear? To this the answer is : Vikalpah,

diversity;vinivarteta, would discontinue; yadi, if;it had been

kalpitah, imagined; kenacit, by anybody.

 

------

 

As we 'imagine' i am this, this is world and it is different from me

these things will be sublated when the real knowledge 'dawns'.

 

Swami Paramarthanandaji says that on the fructification of jnana the

notion that 'i know the truth' or 'i am a jnani' too goes away.

Still the jnani sees the world but never sees the duality as avidya

has been eradicated completely and once for all and that is what is

called figuratively as 'experience of brahman' or 'shaja samdhi' by

Bhagavan Ramana. I think only in perspective and termilogies we are

differing.

 

 

In the case of secular science also Swami Vivekananda says that one

should not use statements like, i have 'aquired knowledge', but i

have only manifested it. He says that 'Religion is the manifestation

of divinity already in man and Education is the manifestation of

perfection already in man.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka

[Guest guest]

From; H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

 

advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns wrote:

 

Dear Br.Vinayaka,

You have wriiten:

"Now let me present the view from the sadhaka's point of view."

I have this to say: Any statement from a sadhaka's standpoint is

always a mistaken one. That is why Acharya and Shastra always points

out the correct and right stand point and advise the sadhaka to see

from that standpoint and not from his standpoint. As an ignorant

person , I am having the notion that the sun rises in the east and

sets in the west. An astronomer says that neither the sun rises nor

sets , but because of the earth's rotation you get that notion. In

order to realize that fact, I must take the standpoint of the

astronomer and then only I realize the truth stated by the

astronomer. Similarly in the field of Vedanta one must learn the

science and the art of taking the right and correct standpoint from

the Acharya and Shastra, in order to realize the TRUTH.

It should be borne mind that any explanation from Sadhaka's

standpoint cannot be taken as it will mislead the persons.

Sri Jiddu Krishnamurti, in one of his talks, says "DO NOT UTTER EVEN

A SINGLE WORD OR SENTENCE WHICH YOU YOURSELF HAS NOT UNDERSTOOD ."

How perfectly he is correct!

There is no place for speculations or opinions in Vedanta.

It is completely based on VERIFIABLE FACTS and it has provided the

necessary means to realize the same.Neither Vedanta nor Sri Sankara

indulges in speculation or unverifiable dogmas.

 

With respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "narayana145" <narayana145 wrote:

 

> Sri Jiddu Krishnamurti, in one of his talks, says "DO NOT UTTER EVEN

> A SINGLE WORD OR SENTENCE WHICH YOU YOURSELF HAS NOT UNDERSTOOD ."

> How perfectly he is correct!

> There is no place for speculations or opinions in Vedanta.

> It is completely based on VERIFIABLE FACTS and it has provided the

> necessary means to realize the same.Neither Vedanta nor Sri Sankara

> indulges in speculation or unverifiable dogmas.

 

Dear Sir,

 

What you say is absolutely true. The essense of religion is

realisation. Advaita calls for subjective orientation. We ourselves

know inspite of our learning and erudition whether we are a jnani or

ajnani. Sri Ramakrishna's story of 5 blind men and an elephant is very

much enlightening. Thanks for the timely reminder...

 

I appreciate your point very much.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka

[Guest guest]

Vinayaka <vinayaka_ns > wrote: --- Further, J.Krishnamurthy says that anything repeated is a lie. That seems to be a profound statement. It is easier and found convenient for many of us to repeat the scriptures, instead of following the higher discipline of learning and listening. Upanishads are a veritable mine of truth. But we have to understand all this, to use the words of Nisargdatta Maharaj, without the split-mind involving a knower and known. When Nisargdatta heard the words of his guru- You are That-he did not have to meditate on that, repeating it. He understood it non-verbally and abided in that. He returned to the world from the wanderings in the Himalayas only at the behest of a sadhu that he had better live in the world itself, which needed a great master to communicate the truth.Be that Nisargdatta Maharaj or Ramalinga Swamigal, all great masters speak the same truth, which is not repetitious. J.Krishnamurti says" The

death that meditation brings about is the immortality of the new. This new is above and beyond the repetitious past. Meditation is the ending of this repetition."

with respectful regards

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Vinayaka <vinayaka_ns > wrote: ---

 

 

We are always the Self and we are never away and are

> never different from the SELF. What is the nature of

> the SELF?

> It is self-existing, self-evident, self-luminous

> principle. Upanishad says " this Atman is Brahman,

> and it is all experience : ayamAtmA brahma, sarvAnuBUH

> iti anuSAsanam".

 

 

 

The following verses from the work, " Reality on Forty verses," bring into clear relief the crux of the issue, that is whether one can admit of the existence of bondage and the transition to freedom as an individual through an act. It is good to meditate on this, rather listen to the great truth without intellectual interpretation.

 

 

 

 

.. If Reality did not exist, could there be any knowledge of existence? Free from all thoughts, Reality abides in the Heart, the Source of all thoughts. It is, therefore, called the Heart. How then is one to contemplate it? To be as it is in the Heart, is Its contemplation.

For Him who is immersed in the bliss of the Self, arising from the extinction of the ego, what remains to be accomplished? He is not aware of anything (as) other than the Self. Who can apprehend his State?

It is ridiculous to say either 'I have not realized the Self' or 'I have realized the Self'; are there two selves, for one to be the object of the other's realization? It is a truth within the experience of everyone that there is only one Self.

The contention, 'Dualism during practice, non-dualism on Attainment', is also false. While one is anxiously searching, as well as when one has found one's Self, who else is one but the tenth man?

 

 

 

with regards

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Vinayaka <vinayaka_ns > wrote: ---

 

 

We are always the Self and we are never away and are

> never different from the SELF. What is the nature of

> the SELF?

> It is self-existing, self-evident, self-luminous

> principle. Upanishad says " this Atman is Brahman,

> and it is all experience : ayamAtmA brahma, sarvAnuBUH

> iti anuSAsanam".

 

 

 

The following verses from the work, " Reality on Forty verses," bring into clear relief the crux of the issue, that is whether one can admit of the existence of bondage and the transition to freedom as an individual through an act. It is good to meditate on this, rather listen to the great truth without intellectual interpretation.

 

 

 

 

.. If Reality did not exist, could there be any knowledge of existence? Free from all thoughts, Reality abides in the Heart, the Source of all thoughts. It is, therefore, called the Heart. How then is one to contemplate it? To be as it is in the Heart, is Its contemplation.

For Him who is immersed in the bliss of the Self, arising from the extinction of the ego, what remains to be accomplished? He is not aware of anything (as) other than the Self. Who can apprehend his State?

It is ridiculous to say either 'I have not realized the Self' or 'I have realized the Self'; are there two selves, for one to be the object of the other's realization? It is a truth within the experience of everyone that there is only one Self.

The contention, 'Dualism during practice, non-dualism on Attainment', is also false. While one is anxiously searching, as well as when one has found one's Self, who else is one but the tenth man?

 

 

 

with regards

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Vinayaka <vinayaka_ns > wrote: ---

 

 

We are always the Self and we are never away and are

> never different from the SELF. What is the nature of

> the SELF?

> It is self-existing, self-evident, self-luminous

> principle. Upanishad says " this Atman is Brahman,

> and it is all experience : ayamAtmA brahma, sarvAnuBUH

> iti anuSAsanam".

 

 

 

The following verses from the work, " Reality on Forty verses," bring into clear relief the crux of the issue, that is whether one can admit of the existence of bondage and the transition to freedom as an individual through an act. It is good to meditate on this, rather listen to the great truth without intellectual interpretation.

 

 

 

 

.. If Reality did not exist, could there be any knowledge of existence? Free from all thoughts, Reality abides in the Heart, the Source of all thoughts. It is, therefore, called the Heart. How then is one to contemplate it? To be as it is in the Heart, is Its contemplation.

For Him who is immersed in the bliss of the Self, arising from the extinction of the ego, what remains to be accomplished? He is not aware of anything (as) other than the Self. Who can apprehend his State?

It is ridiculous to say either 'I have not realized the Self' or 'I have realized the Self'; are there two selves, for one to be the object of the other's realization? It is a truth within the experience of everyone that there is only one Self.

The contention, 'Dualism during practice, non-dualism on Attainment', is also false. While one is anxiously searching, as well as when one has found one's Self, who else is one but the tenth man?

 

 

 

with regards

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran

wrote:

 

 

Ist Statement (On the post on Mandukya)

 

It is only the intellectual

dilettantes who hold such fanciful ideas that the search for the

fourth state is

futile as if they understood the truth that there is only one truth.

In a

similar strain they say that Nirvikalpa Samdhi is inferior, all

these ideas

being based on bookish knowledge.

 

Ind Statement

> It is ridiculous to say either 'I have not realized the Self'

or 'I have realized the Self'; are there two selves, for one to be

the object of the other's realization? It is a truth within the

experience of everyone that there is only one Self.

> The contention, 'Dualism during practice, non-dualism on

Attainment', is also false. While one is anxiously searching, as

well as when one has found one's Self, who else is one but the tenth

man?

 

Dear Sir,

 

Can you make your stand clear on this? Looks contradictory to one

another.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

 

Sreenivasa-ji is quite right when he says we need to define our terms when

referring to "experience", and asks, 'is it related to self or non-self?'

The same should also apply to "knowledge". Book knowledge and acquired

knowledge by the mind is a characteristic of the not-self, and is not

'knowledge of Brahman'.

 

I believe this thread started with Dennis-ji light heartedly 'justifying'

the continued reading and reflection upon more and more books, which he

believed had more value than Japa (Dhyana). He then went on to say in a

follow up post that "experience is not itself of any value".

 

It is certainly true, as Dennis-ji writes, that the intellectual knowledge

of the earth's rotation corrects our everyday experience that the sun rises

and sets. However, it is equally true that no amount of sitting in a room

studying the nature of sunlight and its warmth in a book will ever bring us

the understanding of sunlight and its warmth that comes from stepping out

into the sun and experiencing it first hand.

 

To use another analogy, we can have a great deal of intellectual knowledge

about the composition of water and the principles of buoyancy (floatation),

and even be able to quote the works of the highest authorities in this

regard. Yet no matter how many books we study, no matter how much

reflection we carry out on that knowledge, and no matter how may sources we

can quote from, this will never bring us the direct knowledge of wetness or

the knowledge of swimming that only comes from entering the water.

 

Yes, its true that we often appear to learn nothing at all from experience.

We only have to look around the world, and at our own lives to realize this

fact at first hand. It is also true that we can study for many years the

most noble and sublime philosophy of the wise, be able to say "I am

Brahman", knowing all the relevant scriptures to support and justify the

logic of that affirmation... and yet still experience ourselves as separate

from others, leading a life of quarrels, animosity towards others,

selfishness & so on.

 

Interestingly, it may well be our experience of separateness, of being

caught up with the body and events in the world, that carries implicit

within it the knowledge that "I am Brahman" is, as yet, only an idea for us

and not a direct realization.

 

Given that both 'experience' and 'knowledge' (so called) arise in the

context of duality, we may need to be careful about overvaluing either one

at the expense of the other. Both have real value in the right context. To

go back to the water analogy - having a direct experience of water (wetness)

and knowing how to swim will not help us supply clean and purified water to

a famine stricken region. At the same time, intellectual knowledge of the

chemical composition of water won't help a man who is drowning and can't

swim.

 

>From time to time, some people on this list dismiss the value of experience

(particularly in relation to meditation) on the basis that it is "time

bound". Is it not the case that all the activities of the jiva (ego) are

time bound? Reading scripture, studying, reflecting, associating with the

guru, meditating, mystical experience, eating, sleeping, devotion, desiring,

aspiring & so on... all these are experiences of the Jiva. All of them have

a beginning and an ending and are all time bound. So, "time bound" may not

be the crucial factor in determining the value of any of these activities,

since they all share that characteristic.

 

It seems to me that the real object of the teachings of Advaita Vedanta is

to help us discover *who* we really are, our true nature - namely, what we

refer to by the words Atman, Brahman. So the tricky area for us is in using

our study, reflections, meditation and experiences always in the service of

that aim.

 

We may say that knowledge of advaita is solely to remove ignorance and not

to gain something new (that which is gained anew and did not exist before

cannot be our true nature, Atman). In which case we need to be careful that

our endeavor to remove ignorance does not simply become a means to *acquire*

more and more knowledge. A fat person does not remove weight by eating even

more!

 

Similarly, meditation if not carried out in the service of self-inquiry

(Atma-Vichara) may simply become the means of seeking more and more subtle

experiences.

 

In either case, the danger is - instead of sublating ignorance (the

not-self, ego) we inflate it.

 

Knowledge is never and nowhere in the world

separate from ignorance;

Neither is ignorance at any time and for any one

separate from knowledge.

True knowledge is the Awareness of the Original Self

which becomes manifest by the Quest

'Who is this I to whom belong both of these,'

and nothing else.

(Forty Verses on Reality, v10. Sri Ramana Maharshi, trans, L. Sharman)

 

Best wishes to all advaitins,

 

Peter

[Guest guest]

H.N. Sreenivasa Murthy

Pranams to all.

 

advaitin, "Lady Joyce" <shaantih wrote:

> Well, Dennis-ji, you are the expert. Still, without the

> experience, book knowledge is empty parroting,

> and without the experience, there is no knowledge

> to distill from it. One can speak volumes of words

> which mean absolutely nothing without the true knowing

> which comes only through Grace.

 

Respected Smt Joyce,

It is very important in metaphysical discussions to know clearly

the context in which a particular word is used. The word "Experience"

has one meaning when used in the context of non-Self(anAtma) and the

same word has a different meaning when used in the context

of SELF (Atma). .....

 

Please ponder over this.

With warm and respectful regards,

Sreenivasa Murthy.

=============================================

 

Dear Sreenivasa-ji:

 

Thank you for your kind and considered comments.

As I ponder what you say, I realize that I have no idea

what I meant from a metaphysical standpoint, because

I do not think in metaphysical terms. Realizing this

then led me to consider why I am even on this list,

as I also wonder whether I have the type of mind

to process and understand these concepts. As far

back as when I was in college, one of my least favorite

subjects was philosophy, and now, when the content

of a post becomes more than my mind can absorb,

I get what I jokingly refer to as a nondual headache :-)

 

Somehow, I got to this list a few years ago, when I

first came online seeking spiritual understanding

of certain "experiences" in my life. Since then,

I have unsubbed from most of the groups I joined,

but continue to remain a member, although a

relatively quiet one, of this group. Since I understand

so little of what is posted, I often wonder why

I am a member, but here I stay...Thy will, not mine.

 

Then, as I think more about all of this, Sadaji posts

his first Vedanta lesson, and as I read it, I realize

that by some synchronicity, his articulation of the

four requirements for study of Vedanta are something

like what I am now questioning in myself, in terms of

my "fitness" or predisposition. Truthfully, if you were

to give me one hour, and two books, one a scholarly

Vedantic text and the other, a book of carnatic music,

I would choose the music without so much as a thought

about it.

 

I attend a Chinmaya Mission, where there is ample

opportunity for me to study with one of the learned

Swamijis, yet I choose to reserve my time to attend

Rudrabishekam instead, content to sit and sew malas

for Lord Shiva and Ganesha! So, am I fit for Vedanta?

 

Or should I just give up and go sing a bhajan?

Reading what Sadaji wrote, and knowing that this

is indeed a golden and blessed opportunity to

absorb that which my mind is ready to absorb,

I welcome this chance to learn and I am thankful

for the gift being offered by the learned

gentlemen and women of this list. May we all

be blessed with the timeless knowledge to

which Dennis-ji refers.

 

With warm regards,

 

Joyce

 

PS...Thank you to Peter for eloquently stating

what I was trying to say, I think :-)

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "narayana145" <narayana145

wrote:

>

> From; H.N.Sreenivasa Murthy

> Pranams to all.

>

>

> advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns@> wrote:

>

> Dear Br.Vinayaka,

> You have wriiten:

> "Now let me present the view from the sadhaka's point of

view."

> I have this to say: Any statement from a sadhaka's standpoint

is

> always a mistaken one. That is why Acharya and Shastra always

points

> out the correct and right stand point and advise the sadhaka to

see

> from that standpoint and not from his standpoint.

 

Dear Sir,

 

You are right. If there are no 'mistakes' in the understandings of

the sadhaka he is no more sadhaka he is a siddha a sadguru :-)

And if one feel that he has completed his sadhana i am afraid his

further progress might be barred!

 

In the Mandukya Karika sadguru Sri gauDapAdachArya himself says that:

 

upadeSAadayaM vado jhAate dwaitam na vidyate

 

Diversity would disappear if it had been imagined by anyone. This

kind of talk is for the sake of (making) instruction (possible).

Duality ceases to exist after 'realization'.

 

Now, is not here sadguru, graciously coming down to the level of

sdhaka with his infinite compassion? How can we say such is not

allowed in vedanta?

 

Here sadguru understands the level of his student, corrects him and

leads him to the pennultimate stage where he boldly tells his

student to say:

 

There is no dissolution, no origination, none in bondage, none

striving or aspiring for salvation, and none liberated and this is

the highest truth.

 

This gauDapAdachArya says possible only :

 

When the individual, sleeping under the influence of beginningless

mAyA, is awakened, the he realizes the birthless, sleepless,

dreamless, non dual (turIya)

 

Is it wrong then, to use such words 'awakened' 'realizes' etc. which

will happen in the course of 'time' when the teaching is fructified?

Or we have to go arguing like there is no thing called 'self

realization' apart from bookish knowledge?

---------

You have also told:

 

Similarly in the field of Vedanta one must learn the

science and the art of taking the right and correct standpoint from

the Acharya and Shastra, in order to realize the TRUTH.

It should be borne mind that any explanation from Sadhaka's

standpoint cannot be taken as it will mislead the persons.

 

Now pray tell me who is the 'authority' in Shuddha Advaita as

propogated by Adi Shankara?

 

If you take the issues like samadhi and self-realisation as an event

happening in particular time there seems to be serious differences

among advaita institutions.

 

The authorities of Sringeri Shakara Math, Sri Ramakrishna Math etc

do accept that 'samadhi' and 'experience of ataman' as true. But

there are other institutions like Arsha Vidya Gurukulam headed by

Swami Dayanandaji and his disciple Swami Paramarthanandaji says that

it is the greatest 'misconception' in the advaita vedanta.

 

Books after books are being rejected because just there is a mere

mention of word samadhi, etc. Even works attributed to Sri

Shankaracharya and Sureshwaracharya are discarded mercilessly.

 

I was really startled if Sureshwaracharya failed to understand

shankaracharya who is the foremost disciple of Shankara and the

Shankaracharyas of Sringeri tradions are confused inspite of the

unbroken sacred leniage from the shankara's time. The WHO IS THE

AUTHORITY or WHOOSE INTERPRETATIONS ARE RIGHT?

 

(Please note i do not want to take sides as far as shankara's

advaita is concerned which i have to study thoroughly. But i do

accept samadhi and self-realisation as it is approved by Sri

Ramakrishna, Sri Ramana etc and it is my personal opinion only)

 

Sanskrit is a very tricky language even contrary meanings can be

derived which can be proved gramatically also.

 

For example rAmeshaH word can be interpreted as ramasya ishah

rameshah meaning, he who is the Lord of Rama and the same word can

be interpreted as ramah ishah yasya saha, he whoose lord is rama and

we can go on quarelling saying that rama is great or ishwara is

great. Both are gramatically correct and both meanings can be

derived.

 

Upanishads as well as bhashyas are much more abstruse and only an

enlightened guru can tell us its true meaning.

 

When the truth is told very clearly in the prakarana granthas with

absolutely no scope for ambiguity which are approved by the

authorities of Shankara Maths they are being rejected and proved to

be attributed to some later advaitins who are supposed to have

created lot of confusions and dilutions.

 

Who is the authority is Shuddha shankara advaita is a million dollar

question and remains 'UNANSWERED'

 

So in my humble opinion we should not speak and

argue 'authoritatively' on the issues like samadhi, jnana etc. which

are the pennultimate siddhis of advaita vedanta and should restrict

our study to other discussions.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka

[Guest guest]

Vinayaka <vinayaka_ns > wrote: advaitin, Ganesan Sankarraman <shnkaran

wrote:

 

Ist Statement (On the post on Mandukya)

 

It is only the intellectual

dilettantes who hold such fanciful ideas that the search for the

fourth state is

futile as if they understood the truth that there is only one truth.

In a

similar strain they say that Nirvikalpa Samdhi is inferior, all

these ideas

being based on bookish knowledge.

 

Ind Statement

> It is ridiculous to say either 'I have not realized the Self'

or 'I have realized the Self'; are there two selves, for one to be

the object of the other's realization? It is a truth within the

experience of everyone that there is only one Self.

> The contention, 'Dualism during practice, non-dualism on

Attainment', is also false. While one is anxiously searching, as

well as when one has found one's Self, who else is one but the tenth

man?

Dear Vinayaka,

Excuse me for the wrong quote I have made. There is some mistake in clicking the button. Please ignore this, and excuse me for the embarrassment.

yours in Bhaghavan

Sankarramn

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Pranams Peter-ji

 

"One cannot know sunlight until one basks in it

One cannot know the sweetness of sugar by knowing its

chemical composition, one has to experience it

One cannot know how sweet a mango is unless one

experiences it by eating

One cannot know what it is to swim until one dives in

the water."

 

These analogies have one thing in common - they all

relate the non-Self. This is what Sreenivasa-ji is

trying to say. Bhagwan Shankara dismisses these very

objections in his wonderful work Upadesha Sahasri.

 

The knowledge of the Self is of something that is Me.

In fact it is the only thing that is truly Me.

I can experience the taste of sugar ONLY BECAUSE the

sugar is something other than me. Hence as you point

out i can read a hundred books about sugar and how it

is made but its sweetness i have to experience in

order for me to know sugar. the sugar is non-Self

 

In the case of mySelf this is not the case. The Self

already IS. It is Selfevident. It is everevident and

never nonevident. How can I make mySelf an object of

My experience??

 

That "I am" is an eternal truth.

That I am so-and-so is a wring notion about "I am"

This notion arises due to ignorance.

This ignorance is destroyed by knowledge.

And this has to be "book"knowledge, or in other words

knowledge imparted by a qualified teacher to a

qualified student, because in this case, Ma Shruti is

the only accepted pramana(means of knowledge) for

this.

 

If experience were the means to this knowledge then Ma

Shruti loses its status as the only and authoratative

means for this knowledge. What is more, how can a

teacher ever "teach" a student to experience

something?

 

If I have clear knowledge that I am Brahman, I am

poornam(whole), and "I" still "experience" pain,

jealousy,anger, as you say, then my knowledge (about

mySelf) is incomplete - i clearly do not know who I

am; the mistaken notions about me still persist. i

need to gain better clarity, better understanding. But

what is incomplete is still knowledge alone.

 

You are absolutely right when you say "Reading

scripture, studying,reflecting, associating with the

guru, meditating, mystical experience,

eating,sleeping, devotion, desiring,aspiring & so

on... all these are experiences of the Jiva" But when

you say about a jiva, "He is reading" or "He is

experiencing" the timebound factor is the reading, the

experiencing. The he "Is" is eternal, it is satyam.

How can one have a experience of pure "Isness"

If you understand "I am" is satyam, it is anantam and

it is consciousness/awareness then you are home.

With this understanding alone comes the realization

that "I am" is beyond time, beyond states.

 

I think the difficulty people have or allude to is

this

"i know intellectually that I am Brahman

i have understood what the scriptures say

But i am still dissatisfied, i am still prone to human

failings.

i need to become realized."

 

The trouble is that this thinking itself reveals the

lack of differentiation between all the "i"s and the

one "I" in the above para.

 

And this again is from lack of adequate understanding,

and from an inadevertent fallingback on longheld

tendencies.

What is needed is more hearing and reflection.

 

I agree with you(with a slight change) when you say :

> We say that knowledge of advaita is solely to

> remove ignorance and not

> to gain something new (that which is gained anew and

> did not exist before

> cannot be our true nature, Atman). In which case we

> need to be careful that

> our endeavor to remove ignorance does not simply

> become a means to *acquire*

> more and more experiences. A fat person does not

> remove weight by eating even

> more!

 

Best wishes,

Hari OM

Shyam

 

--- Peter <not_2 (AT) btinternet (DOT) com> wrote:

 

>

>

> Dear friends,

>

> Sreenivasa-ji is quite right when he says we need to

> define our terms when

> referring to "experience", and asks, 'is it related

> to self or non-self?'

> The same should also apply to "knowledge". Book

> knowledge and acquired

> knowledge by the mind is a characteristic of the

> not-self, and is not

> 'knowledge of Brahman'.

> Peter

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Shyam-ji,

 

Thanks for your very thoughtful post, as always.

 

I think that we agree on the essentials, as I do with Sreenivasa's point

about experience. In fact I expressed this agreement a number of times in

my email message where I say all such experiences are experiences of the

not-self. I am simply saying that many of the arguments used to devalue

'experiential knowledge' can equally be applied to book learning and

intellectual knowledge & so on, which are also not-self activities and

experiences of the jiva, and therefore time bound.

 

As you so eloquently point out "knowledge of the Self is of something that

is Me", and "That 'I am' is the eternal truth." To which I would only add,

as in my previous email, therefore true Knowledge is not simply the

accumulation of ideas, words and reflections, no matter how noble the

source.

 

The question for all of us is how to use our study, reflections, meditation

and experiences to realize the true nature of the Self, the 'I am' which is

ever present.

 

Warm wishes,

 

Peter

 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

 

advaitin [advaitin] On Behalf

Of Shyam

09 January 2007 05:47

advaitin

RE: Re:(correction) Is DHYANA is just a mechanical act

of using a Mantra ?

 

 

 

Pranams Peter-ji

 

"One cannot know sunlight until one basks in it

One cannot know the sweetness of sugar by knowing its

chemical composition, one has to experience it

One cannot know how sweet a mango is unless one

experiences it by eating

One cannot know what it is to swim until one dives in

the water."

 

These analogies have one thing in common - they all

relate the non-Self. This is what Sreenivasa-ji is

trying to say. Bhagwan Shankara dismisses these very

objections in his wonderful work Upadesha Sahasri. . . .

<snip>

[Guest guest]

Vinayaka-ji :

 

You wrote to me in a private email saying you appreciated my

welcoming you into the group and my dispay of affection toowards you

is like the 'vatsalya' bhava of a mother towards her son! so , in

that spirit, i am writing this mail to you !

 

Dear heart, you know by now my guru is from the Ramakrishna lineage

and therefore everything that Thakore said or did is a 'veda-vaak'

to me! right ? similarly, sri ramana is my atma guru! so anything

Sri Ramana says is the 'gospel' as far as i am concerned .

 

however , this does not mean we have to criticize other gurus.

Therefore , i did not appreciate this para in your otherwise well

written post

 

" The authorities of Sringeri Shakara Math, Sri Ramakrishna Math

etc do accept that 'samadhi' and 'experience of ataman' as true.

But there are other institutions like Arsha Vidya Gurukulam headed

by Swami Dayanandaji and his disciple Swami Paramarthanandaji says

that > it is the greatest 'misconception' in the advaita vedanta.

 

Books after books are being rejected because just there is a mere

mention of word samadhi, etc. Even works attributed to Sri

Shankaracharya and Sureshwaracharya are discarded mercilessly"

 

i am not here to defend any of the swamiji's nor am i qualified to

do so. But you yourself admit that you are simply a 'sadhak' , you

should not call their philosophies as 'misconceptions' - you know ,

we have great regard for subbuji and he quotes freely swami

Paramarthanandaji . Also, there are many others who regard swami

dayanandaji as their guru in this very group. Obviously, there is

something very valuable in their teachings which you and i can

learn from ! my friend Lakshmiji says that swamiji's teachings on

Gita are the best! AO, please let wisdom flow from all directions !

keep the windows of your mind open, always !

 

in any case , samadhi and Jnana are not siddhis ! THEY ARE STATES OF

BEING !

 

just a mother's admonition to her son.

 

ok?

 

regards

 

ps there is no such thing as shuddha or ashuddha advaita ? how can

there be two where there is only one? only Santam Shivam, Advaitam!

In any case, we must learn to accept all authority figures , right ?

i have learned this the hard way .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Vinayaka" <vinayaka_ns wrote:

>

 

>>

> The authorities of Sringeri Shakara Math, Sri Ramakrishna Math etc

> do accept that 'samadhi' and 'experience of ataman' as true. But

> there are other institutions like Arsha Vidya Gurukulam headed by

> Swami Dayanandaji and his disciple Swami Paramarthanandaji says

that

> it is the greatest 'misconception' in the advaita vedanta.

>

> Books after books are being rejected because just there is a mere

> mention of word samadhi, etc. Even works attributed to Sri

> Shankaracharya and Sureshwaracharya are discarded mercilessly.

>

> I was really startled if Sureshwaracharya failed to understand

> shankaracharya who is the foremost disciple of Shankara and the

> Shankaracharyas of Sringeri tradions are confused inspite of the

> unbroken sacred leniage from the shankara's time. The WHO IS THE

> AUTHORITY or WHOOSE INTERPRETATIONS ARE RIGHT?

>

> (Please note i do not want to take sides as far as shankara's

> advaita is concerned which i have to study thoroughly. But i do

> accept samadhi and self-realisation as it is approved by Sri

> Ramakrishna, Sri Ramana etc and it is my personal opinion only)

>

> they are being rejected and proved to

> be attributed to some later advaitins who are supposed to have

> created lot of confusions and dilutions.

>

> > question and remains 'UNANSWERED'

>

> So in my humble opinion we should not speak and

> argue 'authoritatively' on the issues like samadhi, jnana etc.

which

> are the pennultimate siddhis of advaita vedanta and should

restrict

> our study to other discussions.

>

> Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

>

> Br. Vinayaka

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Peter-ji,

 

 

 

You raise some very important points here and, having read through it once,

I put it on one side to reply to later. I then read Shyam-ji's excellent

response and discovered he had more than amply done all the hard work for

me! These two posts together are so valuable that I would like to combine

them into a single 'essay' for the website, if that is ok with you both.

 

 

 

It seems to me that the questions tie in well with last week's adhyAsa

definition. As Shyam-ji points out, knowledge of the Self is quite different

from knowledge of 'everything else'. When I say that 'I am a man', there is

endless information from science and other fields of study about 'man' but

the only true knowledge is in the 'I am', since this is the only reality.

Our problems arise when we confuse the two and this is adhyAsa. The purpose,

if you like, of a spiritual path is to 'acquire knowledge' only to the

extent that this knowledge negates the ignorance, i.e. cancels out all of

the false knowledge relating to 'man' etc. (neti, neti - not this, not this)

and ultimately leaves the 'I am' as the only reality.

 

 

 

It must always be remembered that knowledge is as much mithyA (not

ultimately real, depending upon Brahman for its existence) as is ignorance.

As you say, it effectively relates to the 'not-self' rather than the Self.

We cannot acquire knowledge about the Self since reality cannot be

described. But this is not a problem, since the ignorance is about the

'not-self' too and it is this ignorance that needs to be eliminated.

 

 

 

All of the apparent world, including knowledge, ignorance and experience are

'time bound' as you put it. But so is enlightenment! Although our being the

Self is timeless and without limit of any kind, our realization of this, if

it should occur, will happen in time.

 

 

 

You are right about the dangers of acquiring more knowledge. I like the

quotation by Sri Poonja in respect of this: "In order to be born as a baby

you have to spend nine months getting bigger and bigger. For Enlightenment

you have to get smaller and smaller until you disappear completely."

 

 

 

I do not entirely agree with the example given by Shyam-ji, of requiring

more knowledge if one still experiences pain, jealousy, anger etc. I suggest

that the 'enlightened man' *does* still experience these to some degree. The

key difference is that there is no attachment to them - they simply come and

go, because it is the nature of the conditioned body-mind to experience

these things. But 'I' am not the conditioned body-mind.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

>Sreenivasa-ji is quite right when he says we need to define our terms when

>referring to "experience", and asks, 'is it related to self or non-self?'

>The same should also apply to "knowledge". Book knowledge and acquired

>knowledge by the mind is a characteristic of the not-self, and is not

>'knowledge of Brahman'.

[Guest guest]

Dear Peter-Ji:

 

Your original post was quite profound and eloquent. I was delayed in

replying showing my appreciation. Then when I checked Shyam-Ji and

others had responded. I also had the idea of putting them on my website

but Dennis-Ji beat me to that as well! :-) :-).

 

Well, I have been a bit busy and am trying to keep up as best I can. The

list has gotten busy. Many times, I would like to put the posts of the

esteemed and learned members on my website. However, since I am an

academic by training, I do not feel comfortable doing that without

explicit permission and consent of the authors.

 

Bowing to all my gurus here Peter-Ji, Dhyansaraswati-Ji, Subbu-Ji,

Sada-Ji, Joyce-Ji, Shyam-Ji, Krishnamurthy-Ji, Sunder-Ji, Dennis-Ji,

Frank-Ji, Ram-Ji,...........too many to mention in this human time.

 

Today, I felt Bill Gates is my guru too! See on

 

Chidananda Rupam Shivoham, Shivoham!

 

Chidananda Rupam Shivoham, Shivoham!

 

Namaste and Love to all

Harsha

 

 

 

Peter wrote:

> Dear Shyam-ji,

>

> Thanks for your very thoughtful post, as always.

>

> I think that we agree on the essentials, as I do with Sreenivasa's point

> about experience. In fact I expressed this agreement a number of times in

> my email message where I say all such experiences are experiences of the

> not-self. I am simply saying that many of the arguments used to devalue

> 'experiential knowledge' can equally be applied to book learning and

> intellectual knowledge & so on, which are also not-self activities and

> experiences of the jiva, and therefore time bound.

>

> As you so eloquently point out "knowledge of the Self is of something that

> is Me", and "That 'I am' is the eternal truth." To which I would only add,

> as in my previous email, therefore true Knowledge is not simply the

> accumulation of ideas, words and reflections, no matter how noble the

> source.

>

> The question for all of us is how to use our study, reflections, meditation

> and experiences to realize the true nature of the Self, the 'I am' which is

> ever present.

>

> Warm wishes,

>

> Peter

>

>

>

>

>

>

> ________________________________

>

> advaitin [advaitin] On Behalf

> Of Shyam

> 09 January 2007 05:47

> advaitin

> RE: Re:(correction) Is DHYANA is just a mechanical act

> of using a Mantra ?

>

>

>

> Pranams Peter-ji

>

> "One cannot know sunlight until one basks in it

> One cannot know the sweetness of sugar by knowing its

> chemical composition, one has to experience it

> One cannot know how sweet a mango is unless one

> experiences it by eating

> One cannot know what it is to swim until one dives in

> the water."

>

> These analogies have one thing in common - they all

> relate the non-Self. This is what Sreenivasa-ji is

> trying to say. Bhagwan Shankara dismisses these very

> objections in his wonderful work Upadesha Sahasri. . . .

> <snip>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Shyamji Wrote,

 

If experience were the means to this knowledge then Ma

Shruti loses its status as the only and authoratative

means for this knowledge.

-------------

 

 

advaitin, "Peter" <not_2 wrote:

 

>

> As you so eloquently point out "knowledge of the Self is of

something that

> is Me", and "That 'I am' is the eternal truth." To which I would

only add,

> as in my previous email, therefore true Knowledge is not simply the

> accumulation of ideas, words and reflections, no matter how noble the

> source.

 

Dear Advaitins,

 

In my personal opinion it is not to right to say Shruti is the 'only'

means or source of knowledge. Shanakra gives very high status to

shruti because all the experiences or knowledge gained by whatever

method if not 'tallied' with the shruti cannot be accepted as

authentic.

 

For example the patanjali yoga sutras even though its an 'experience'

of the sage patanjali shanakracharya has to refute because it is not

the truth as told by the shruti and is dualistic in approach.

 

On the other hand if an ulettered mystic like Sri Ramakrishna or

Bhagavan Ramana or nay even a christian mystic after following his

own 'method' of sadhana comes out with the same truth as propogated by

vedanta i feel shankaracharya has no objection to accpet it. He

becomes the knower of brahman and an advaitin too.

 

But if one says that that is not sufficient to become an advaitin but

one has to mug up panini's ashtadhyayi and should read

upanishads 'only' and it is the only 'means' and then only he will be

called advaitin, then my answer is :-)

 

Swami Vivekananda says that the freedom is the birthright of every man

and vedanta contains universal truths which is not the exclusive

possesion of any particular religion or a sect or race. But it is

the 'ultimate truth' towards which all are progressing knowingly or

unknowlingly.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka

[Guest guest]

Vinayaka <vinayaka_ns > wrote:

 

 

Dear Vinayaka,

Bhaghavan Ramana is not an unlettered person. He is very proficient in Tamil, being well-versed in Tamil Grammatical Texts like Nannul and Tholkappiyam, something which many Tamilians who decry Sanskrit and talk proudly about Tamil cannot claim. Moreover, even at the age of Fifteen Ramana had completed reading the poetical work, ' Periya Puranam,' written by the great Saivaite saint, containing the account of the Saivaite saints known as Nayanmars. Bhaghvan was well-versed in Tamil devotional hymns like Thevaram and Thiruvachakam. He could not bear the idea of anybody making an incorrect reading of these works. Bhaghavn had the rare capacity to write poems in the metre of Venbha. I happened to go through a book containing an account of great ones who have made contribution to Tamil poetry, and was astounded to see Bhaghvan's name in that. The author was surprised as to how Bhaghvan could have had such a skill in writing Tamil poetry, without

having been formally tutored by anybody. Bhaghavn in the course of his life gained proficiency in Sanskrit, Malayalma,Telugu and even Kannada, having written poetry in all the languages other than Kannada. Bhagahvan had a good smattering of English, having chosen not to speak in that language to be free from any pretension. Bhaghavn had a good knowledge in Ayurveda. He was an extremely good cook, and was skilled in all practical things. He had a marvelous Engineering knowledge, having given his design in the matter of construction of some buildings. All these things I learnt from Annamalai Swamy, a great devotee of Bhaghavan and a veritable jivanmukta, whom I had the good fortune of knowing for a long period, having been blessed by him. He has told me many astounding things about Bhaghavan. Bhaghavan was a great artist every inch, the like of whom we cannot see. One orthodox Iyengar devotee had been to the Ashram. At the time of joining the line for the meals he was

perplexed whether to take the common row consisting of unorthodox brahmins and the non-brahmins or to join the line of the orthodox brahmins in view of this orthodox leanings. Bhaghavan, having understood his predicament, asked him to be seated by his side. Bhaghavan never thrust any opinion on anybody, having the highest regard for all religions and world views, having been very sympathetic towards the mediocre people like many of us.

 

yours in Bhaghavan

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Everyone is raving about the all-new Mail beta.

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis-ji,

 

Thanks for your thoughts (your message #34570) and acknowledging those

points as important (my message #34541). Apologies for the delay in

replying due to influenza. Not wanting to interfere with the ongoing

agenda for the group, I had kept my earlier response to Shyam-ji very brief.

However, if you feel this exploration is valuable enough to put on the

website, then I would like to correct a misunderstanding. Apologies for any

repetitions from my original message which seems a long time ago in terms of

the number of mails which have flown under the bridge since then.

 

Here is the misunderstanding. Shyam-ji begins his reply (#34555) by

refuting a claim that I am not actually making. He does so by listing the

following statements:

 

- One cannot know sunlight until one basks in it

- One cannot know the sweetness of sugar by knowing its

chemical composition, one has to experience it

- One cannot know how sweet a mango is unless one

experiences it by eating

- One cannot know what it is to swim until one dives in

the water.

 

Shyam-ji then goes on to say:

 

"These analogies have one thing in common - they all relate the non-Self.

This is what Sreenivasa-ji is trying to say. Bhagwan Shankara dismisses

these very objections in his wonderful work Upadesha Sahasri."

 

My response: Indeed, they do all relate to the not-self, which is what I

wrote in my email. The objection that Shankara refutes here is that the

Self is an object that can be experienced by a knower distinct from it, as

in the example of experiencing/knowing the taste of sugar, the feel of

sunlight or of water, etc. Shankara points out that the Self is the

'subject', 'the knower' and thus can never be an object of experience

separate from the knower. Who alone can know the knower?

 

What I was referring to in my email is a different point, namely, that what

we normally refer to as intellectual knowledge and experiential knowledge

(whether material, psychological or spiritual) both belong to the world of

relative truth, duality. Both are valid, both have strengths and weakness

depending on context. Both are time bound, so one should not use the

"time-bound" argument to devalue only 'experience'. All the activities and

experiences of the Jiva are time bound. The Self cannot be an *object* for

any kind of knowledge - whether 'intellectual' or 'experiential'.

 

Both the knowledge that comes from thinking and from experiencing (whether

of a spiritual or material nature) are both valuable. However, our task, as

I understand it, is to realize what we truly are (the Self) and not simply

to accumulate more and more ideas and book knowledge or to seek more and

more experiences.

 

That's all I am saying.

 

Just a few time bound thoughts.

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

[Guest guest]

Dear Peter-ji,

 

 

 

I don't think there is really a point of disagreement here. Certainly, all

of this discussion and our thinking about it are in the vyAvahArika duality.

I agree that we cannot know the Self. The point is that our misconceptions

about all of this are in duality and they have to be cleared up in duality.

The jIva and his or her ignorance are in vyavahAra and the knowledge that is

needed to remove that ignorance is there too. But I do not see it as

accumulating knowledge; it is rather losing ignorance. The 'realizing what

we truly are' is also in vyavahAra. The Self does not become known

objectively in this realization; rather it is seen that the supposed subject

and object are really one even though they still appear as two. In this

realizing, the body-mind form does not become unmanifest.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

<<Both the knowledge that comes from thinking and from experiencing (whether

of a spiritual or material nature) are both valuable. However, our task, as

I understand it, is to realize what we truly are (the Self) and not simply

to accumulate more and more ideas and book knowledge or to seek more and

more experiences.>>

[Guest guest]

Dear Dennis-ji,

 

>>> The jIva and his or her ignorance are in vyavahAra and the knowledge

that is

needed to remove that ignorance is there too. But I do not see it as

accumulating knowledge; it is rather losing ignorance. <<<

 

As you say, we are in agreement. Perhaps what makes it "accumulating

knowledge" or "removing ignorance" lies in the aim we have for our practice,

for our intention and motive for study, reflection and meditation. And this

may be something we need to be mindful of on a day to day basis, if not

moment to moment basis.

 

Best wishes,

 

Peter

 

________________________________

 

advaitin [advaitin] On Behalf

Of Dennis Waite

12 January 2007 18:40

advaitin

Re:(correction) Is DHYANA is just a mechanical act of

using a Mantra ?

 

<snip>